The Demise of Unions and Why We Need to Revive
Them

Consider the following scenario. A branch of Simpson Supermarkets
advertises an opening for a sales clerk, at $10/hr, in one of its
Brooklyn stores. Joe Hyde is interested and comes to the store for
an interview with the manager. After a brief discussion, the manager
offers the job to Joe. Joe says he would be happy to accept, but he
wants $14/hr. The manager raises the offer to $11, Joe says he'll go
down to $13, and they finally agree to make it $12. Maybe this
negotiation could have occurred in some parallel universe, but no
way would it occur in the one we reside in.

As an isolated individual, an applicant for such a job has no
leverage that would enable negotiation with even a small
corporation. In today's real world Joe could either accept the job
at the specified pay rate or turn it down--no bargaining. The story
might be different if there were a shortage of workers. But, as will
be made clear below, there are powerful mechanisms that make this
very unlikely. If there were a union, Joe would still have the same
take-it-or-leave-it choice, but the pay offered would almost
certainly be significantly larger, as a result of negotiations
between the union and the company.

American workers today, in all categories, ranging from well
educated, highly skilled professionals, to unskilled, poorly
educated people have, for several decades been receiving steadily
diminishing shares of the national income. One reason, which is the
principal subject of this essay, is the near elimination of labor
unions as an economic and political force. The other is the fact
that there is a surplus of workers in the US in virtually every
category. Let's first look briefly at the reasons for this surplus.

The role of technology

Technology is a major factor in the elimination of jobs. One
bulldozer operator can replace many workers with picks and
shovels. Many tedious, repetitive tasks, and some that are
hazardous, have been relegated to machines. The number of person
hours that go into the production of an automobile, for example, has
been greatly reduced by automation.

Automated telephone switching systems have made possible our
worldwide telephone network without requiring that a large
proportion of the population work as telephone operators. Some
highly skilled jobs, such as controllers of processes in steel
mills, have also been automated. Sadly, instead of benefiting from
technological progress over the past several decades, large numbers
of people were vocationally displaced. No effort has been made to
compensate them for their loss [Unger-
Benefits].

In some cases, automation has transferred work to consumers. A
clear example is the maddening telephone trees that we often have to
navigate in order to deal with some simple matter, perhaps
concerning an insurance policy.

Import workers--export jobs

A classic method used by American employers to lower wages is the
importing of workers from low-wage countries. This was done from the
start of the industrial age, as textile workers were brought in from
Europe to replace the original American workers who were demanding
higher pay. Railroad construction during the nineteenth century was
heavily dependent on workers brought in from China and Ireland, who
were willing to work hard for very little pay. Companies usually
claim that they can't get enough Americans to do the work. What that
means is that not enough Americans were, or are, willing to do the
work, under third world conditions, for the low wages offered.

Today, workers are brought in from low-pay countries in several
ways. One is via a "guest worker" program, in which workers are
brought in, for a limited time, to fill such jobs as crop harvesting
or computer programming. A second way is to admit workers from the
same countries as permanent residents, or as prospective citizens. A
third way is to encourage illegal immigration. Note, for example,
that about half of all hired agricultural workers are here
illegally, and about a quarter are guest workers.

During the past several decades, an additional approach has been
used to create worker surpluses. This is to export American jobs to
low-pay countries. There are two varieties of this method, both of
which involve shutting down factories and research and development
facilities in the US.

In one version, US corporations establish their own overseas
facilities in low-pay countries. In the other version, US companies
contract to have their products manufactured by indigenous companies
in low-pay countries.

Both schemes benefit US corporations in several ways. They obtain
products at much lower costs in wages. Other production costs are
also reduced, since factories in China, and in many other countries,
externalize costs by using methods that abuse the environment in
ways not legal in the US. Furthermore, by decreasing the number of
jobs available to US workers, they force US workers to compete for
the remaining jobs by accepting lower pay and degraded working
conditions. I have written in more detail about the points mentioned
in this
section [Unger-immigration][Unger-Jobs][Unger-Americans].

Yet another way in which a worker surplus is created is to impose
longer work weeks. This reduces the number of workers needed. Note
further that, if hourly pay rates are cut, many people have to take
on second or even third jobs in order to make a living. This, in
effect, further increases the number of available workers. (There is
a counter effect in that some people will not accept a job if the
pay rate is too low.)

What unions can do for workers

In addition to the surplus of workers with respect to jobs, the
fact that fewer than 7% of private sector US workers belong to
unions goes far to account for the current lowly status of American
workers. Good unions help workers in several ways. The most obvious
is by negotiating labor contracts that increase pay, and improve
benefits and working conditions for union members.

Unions also help workers not in unions. E.g., if a
company is unionized and its workers thereby gain certain benefits,
this puts pressure on non-unionized companies in the same industry
to match those benefits in order to ward off the formation of unions
by their employees. Unions can also help workers in general by
operating in the political arena to lobby for legislation favorable
to workers, help put pro-worker people in government positions, and
by educating the general population about worker issues.

So, even tho unions never represented much more than about a third
of American workers, they had a major beneficial effect on the
economic well being of all working and middle class Americans during
the New Deal and post World War II eras. Since the mid fifties, both
union membership and the income share of working Americans have
been steadily declining. About 11.3% of American workers now belong
to unions (6.6% of private sector and 35.9% of public sector
workers) [BLS]. How did this happen?

Some history

Unions in the US have always faced powerful opposition from
employers, who, except during the New Deal period, have generally
been supported by local, state, and federal government. Forming a
union was always difficult, as employers routinely fired those
workers involved in the organizing process. During strikes, picket
line battles were common, as employers brought in replacement
workers (scabs), who striking workers tried to keep from crossing
their picket lines.

Employers often hired strikebreakers and labor spies to intimidate
workers. Starting in the late nineteenth century there were gun
battles between workers and employer guards, police, state militia,
and even federal troops. Workers almost always lost. Most union
organizing campaigns were unsuccessful as the forces arrayed against
the workers were overwhelming. The workers who succeeded in forming
unions and getting contracts with employers were usually skilled
artisans, such as bricklayers, plumbers, miners, railroad train
drivers. It was not so easy to replace them with scabs.

An additional factor that plagued workers, particularly during the
first half of the twentieth century, were gangsters who muscled
their way into the control of some major unions, such as the East
Coast longshoremen, and the teamsters union. Sometimes the
gangsters, for a fee, promoted the interests of employers, and
sometimes they used their control of a union to extort money from
employers, in addition to stealing from union treasuries.

The golden days of American unions were during the New Deal era,
starting, just before it began, with the passage of the
Norris-LaGuardia Act in 1932, and then the 1935 Wagner Act (National
Labor Relations Act--NLRA). These laws, which were initially
enforced to a useful extent, made it possible for workers to form
substantial, effective unions on an industry-wide basis. I.e,
encompassing all workers at a facility, not just highly
skilled workers. Note tho that the Wagner Act does not cover
agricultural, railroad, airline, or government workers.

By the mid-fifties, with the New Deal a fading memory, the tide
turned and union membership began a decline that is still going
on. (An exception to the general downward trend was the growth of
teacher's and some government worker unions.)

Why did union membership fall?

Suppose, for example, that the employees of a large department
store wish to form a union to negotiate for higher pay, improved
working conditions, and better job security. If management is
strongly opposed to this, there are two basic methods it can use to
resist. It can increase pay and improve other conditions
sufficiently to make workers feel that it is not worth the trouble
to unionize just for further marginal improvements. Or, it can use a
variety of nasty tactics, discussed below, to fight off efforts to
establish a
union [Wikipedia-busting][Shapiro]. (Or both
methods could be used.) The second method is, by far, more commonly
used. This often involves calling on the services of companies that
specialize in impeding the formation of unions and in strike
breaking.

Many aggressive tactics have been used for these purposes. One set
is based on the idea of replacing those supporting the union with
more docile people. The importing of workers from abroad for this
purpose was, as mentioned above, common in the past, and is still
being used today, as people from low-pay countries are encouraged to
come here, both legally and illegally. Companies were formed to
supply workers to break strikes.

Agents of companies such as the Pinkerton Detective Agency were
used to infiltrate unions in order to disrupt their operations by
such means as provoking violence, stirring up racial strife among
members, and raiding union treasuries. They were able to do a great
deal of damage by simply identifying employees who were strong union
supporters, so that they could be fired. In some cases agents
succeeded in attaining leadership positions enabling them to
virtually destroy the unions, or to convert them into tame "company
unions".

The current situation

Since the end of the New Deal era, government, at all levels,
reverted to its prior anti-labor role. The 1947 Taft-Hartley Act,
which significantly weakened the pro-labor provisions of the Wagner
Act, marked the beginning of the downfall of labor unions. One of
its features was to give state governments the right to pass laws
outlawing union-management agreements requiring all employees of a
unionized company to pay all or part of specified union
dues. Cooperation between different unions was restricted.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is the agency charged
with enforcing national labor laws. It is supposed to protect the
legal rights of workers to organize unions. But, particularly since
passage of the Taft-Hartley Act, it has proven to be a paper tiger
with respect to protecting the right to organize a
union [Greenhouse][Weiner].

A basic point is that, when a worker is fired for expressing
support for a union, which is a violation of the law, the NLRB is
limited to ordering back pay (less any earnings during the layoff
period), and this only after a prolonged delay. No punitive action
can be taken against the perpetrators. Employers freely violate this
and other aspects of labor laws, accepting the minimal consequences
as a cost of doing business. Proving that a worker was fired for
union activity is difficult, as the courts tend to accept arguments
that there were other reasons.

The period between the accumulation of enough signatures (30% of
the work force involved) to mandate a certification election and the
date of the election is usually several months, and can be prolonged
for years by various legal tactics involving such matters as arguing
over which workers are in the proposed bargaining
unit [Wikipedia-NLRB]. This time is
commonly used by employers to apply all sorts of pressure on the
employees, including the identification and firing of strong union
supporters. A company can require its workers to attend meetings on
their premises at which it presents arguments against the union. But
the union has no access to workers on company property.

Employer threats, e.g., to cut health benefits, or to lay off half
the work force, or to close a plant if the union wins a union
representation election are illegal. But there is no penalty for a
violation. All the NLRB can do is to order the company to post a
notice (after the election is over) promising not to do it
again. Even when a union wins a certification election, employers
can drag their heels for many months before entering into serious
negotiations.

The situation is very different North of our border. In Canada,
labor laws are far less hostile to unions, which may explain why
there was no plunge there in union membership over the past few
decades [Warner].

US unions are generally in weak positions. Companies respond to
demands for decent wages by downsizing their work forces and
outsourcing work to non-union firms, or hiring contract workers, who
are not protected by unions. Credible threats are made to relocate
out-of-state, or even out-of-country. Even long established public
sector unions are under attack. E.g., the NY City government
recently insisted on contract changes degrading job security and
lowering the (already low) pay rate of school bus drivers, thereby
provoking a strike, which the union
lost [Singer].

The relative success of public sector unions in bettering the lives
of their members might reasonably have been expected to inspire
private sector workers to join or form unions. Unfortunately, the
more prevalent effect is that they resent the effect of public
sector unions on their tax rates. Contributing to anti-union bias
are the inconveniences to the public that often result from
strikes. The great difficulties outlined above in forming private
sector unions may be another factor in shaping this attitude.

Another reason given for opposition to unions is that increasing
worker pay and benefits increases the costs of goods and
services. Of course, this is an argument that could be, and was,
used to oppose the abolition of slavery. It is also related to the
argument that improving conditions for American workers puts US
industry at a disadvantage with respect to competitors in low-wage
countries.

A more legitimate criticism of unions is that they have a mixed
record with respect to racism. E.g., building trade unions have
traditionally excluded blacks. This, of course, is not an argument
against unions in general, but rather an argument for action to deal
with this serious failing where it exists. There is no reason why
this problem can't be solved, as, both now, and in the past, many,
perhaps most, unions have behaved properly in this regard. Unions
have often been in the forefront of battles against racism.

In the face of a very difficult situation, it does not appear that
unions have risen to the occasion. There is little evidence of
inspired leadership. The idea of solidarity seems to be a thing of
the past. There seems to be little in the way of joint action by
different unions to push for common goals or to help one
another. Most unions seem to be wedded to the Democratic Party,
despite that party having done virtually nothing for them since the
New Deal days.

Future prospects for American workers

It should be obvious that individuals, with the exception perhaps
of some very specially qualified, talented people, cannot in any
real sense "negotiate" terms of employment with organizations. The
union "movement" today is little more than the twitching of a dying
organism. Thus, there has been a steady downward slide affecting the
great majority of all Americans living on wages and salaries. Job
security, income, health care and other benefits, have all been
going south for decades. All indications are that this trend will
continue, as there are no signs of significant numbers of people
getting together to do anything that has the potential to stop
it. (This, despite the fact that most private sector workers say
they would like to be able to join
unions. [Freeman]) Occasional organized
protests not associated with real political action won't do the job.

So, we are approaching a situation in which the US population will
consist of a tiny, super-rich elite, dominating a layer of people
precariously clinging to middle class status, and a mass of people
living in, or on the edge of, poverty.

A necessary condition for reversing this slide is a movement to
develop a strong political party that represents the general
population, as opposed to the current major parties that are owned
by the elite. A government in the hands of such a decent party
would, among other benefits, make possible a revival of real labor
unions, and the growth of worker
cooperatives [Unger-Co-Ops]. It is also
essential that rank and file union members actively participate in
the governance of their unions, so as to ensure that the leadership
is honest, competent, and acting in the best interest of the members
and the public.